[Ecommerce] Register to vote in ICANN's General Assembly

[James Love]

We have asked the ICANN "General Assembly" to vote on a motion requesting
the US Department of Commerce to rebid the ICANN contract.   It appears as
though such a vote will be held the week of May 13-17.    Anyone can
register to vote in these elections, which are not binding on ICANN, but in
this case would be timely and important.    The decision to vote on the
rebid has been highly contentious.   To register to vote, go here:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html


A few missives from the GA discussions on this, starting with one from
Thomas Roessler, the Chair of the GA, who earlier opposed the vote, but has
now agreed to proceed.  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: "DPF" <david@farrar.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract


> DPF wrote:
> > I believe that any future influence would be so small and
> > insignificant that the preferred course is to get DOC to rebid the
> > contract.  ICANN have miserably failed to meet the MOU so why should
> > they get to keep the job?
>
> Let's make sure that I actually understand what you are saying here:
>   The GA's influence is currently minimal, there is no chance that this
> could get better  in a future ICANN, so we can just as well  commit
> collective public harakiri?
>
> Because, quite frankly, that's what the kind of resolution which Jamie
> has been proposing would mean.  I want that everyone here is clear about
> this:  If this General Assembly passes, by vote, a declaration that just
> suggests a re-bid of ICANN functions, then this GA has expressed its
> distrust in the ICANN structures, of which it is part.  As a corollary,
> the GA would sign its own certificate of death by passing the resolution
> Jamie has proposed.  Bad enough, that certificate of death would most
> likely also be valid in a reformed ICANN - i.e., in the case that there
> is no rebid, despite the hopes some here may have.
>
> Do you folks want that?  More importantly, is the GA even the right
> place to declare ICANN process bankrupt?  Jamie:  Why do you want that
> this resolution is passed by the GA?  Why don't you try to make your
> points by channels outside the ICANN structure, if you believe that this
> structure is so flawed that it should not be reformed, but abandoned?
>
>
> In particular, this means that the resolution suggested by Jamie is
> entirely inappropriate if we want to exercise any influence on the
> reform process, or if we want to make a statement on that process.  Do
> we want to remind the ICANN community of some of the basic principles?
>   Then we should do just that, without the harakiri part.  We should
> clearly state the principles we are talking about.  We may even say that
> we believe there should be a re-bid of ICANN functions if these
> principles are not appropriately respected by ICANN's reform process.
>   But, in this case, we should not declare that we are giving up on ICANN
> process now.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler (mobile) <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>




----- Original Message -----
From: "jeanette hofmann" <jeanette@medea.wz-berlin.de>
To: "DPF" <david@farrar.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; "Jonathan Weinberg"
<weinberg@mail.msen.com>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...


> On 4 May 2002, at 6:29, DPF wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 03 May 2002 13:39:58 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg
> > <weinberg@mail.msen.com> wrote:
> >
> > >         1. I agree with Jamie's proposal.  We don't know, at this
> > >         point,
> > >what sort of structure a rebid might generate.  But I believe that a
> > >rebid is more likely to generate a good structure than is the
> > >Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform.
>
> I support a rebid not because I expect the DOC to generate or
> negotiate a better structure next time but rather because the
> current ICANN structure lacks any form of accountability. Rebids
> might be a way of compensating for this severe shortcoming. In the
> unlikely case that we succeed in achieving a rebid, ICANN's
> successor might be less indifferent with regard to proper procedure
> and consensus assertions.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> The issue presented by the
> > >proposal is not what ICANN's new structure should be, but rather
> > >which *forum* should be deciding how to address ICANN's
> > >self-acknowledged crisis.  I trust the rebid process to generate a
> > >workable structure much more than I trust the Board.
> >
> > This is also a pretty good summary of my views.  Despite the efforts
> > of Thomas and other members of the Names Council I have absolutely no
> > confidence that the Board will adopt any progressive reforms that
> > weren't planned by the staff anyway.
> >
> > David Farber et all in their call of several weeks ago correctly
> > stated that the culture and history of ICANN means it will never be
> > able to win the trust of the internet community. However a replacement
> > body could if not captured by a few insiders.
> >
> > DPF
> > --
> > david@farrar.com
> > ICQ 29964527
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract


> Jonathan Weinberg's said that the motion on the DoC rebid concerns "which
> *forum* should be deciding how to address ICANN's self-acknowledged
crisis."
> Some persons on and off list have expressed concern over a forum that is
US
> based.  The DoC contracts are currently the only leverage over ICANN.  DoC
> wants to get out from under the ICANN mess, and the EU, Japan, China and
> others don't want a US only solution either.  The motion could be modified
> to make it clear that a rebid should seek an international (not US only)
> solution.
>
> -----modified motion text------------
> "I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on whether or
not
> the US Department of Commerce should have an open competition for the
> services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new competition would
> address the need to develop an international framework for DNS management.
> The rationale for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically
changed
> the intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
> changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet community.
> The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider alternatives to the current
ICANN
> plan for managing key Internet resources. The vote should be taken within
10
> days."
> -----end of modified motion text----------
>
> The rationale for the motion is, as suggested by Professor Weinberg, to
> shift the forum for reform to the DoC, in the short term.   Those who
> support the motion believe the Committee on ICANN reform will not embrace
> the types of changes that are needed, in terms of accountability to the
> Internet community.
>
> To inform this debate further, I can report that the DoC is committed to a
> private sector solution, will not support turning ICANN over to the ITU,
and
> in general is quite responsive to many of the civil society concerns that
> have been expressed.  On the other hand, the DoC probably needs a push to
> get involved.   ICANN is not a high priority at DoC, and most people see
> involvement in ICANN as low yield for the time involved.  A GA motion
would
> be helpful and timely.
>
> With regard to Thomas R's concerns regarding how such a vote would
influence
> the ICANN' board's decisions regarding the future of the GA, I agree that
if
> the GA proves to be extremely docile and unwilling to criticize the board
on
> important points, it may rise in the eyes of those board members who
cannot
> tolerate criticism.  It will also lose respect among those who see the GA
as
> a forum for telling truth to power.  People will have different views on
how
> to make the tradeoff.   People who disagree with the motion can vote
against
> it.  At this point, a decision to not permit a vote will be interpreted,
> perhaps wrongly, that the ICANN leadership, including the GA Chair,
believe
> the motion would pass.  In fact, I have no idea if the motion would pass
or
> fail.  Finally, Thomas's comments make it clear that the motion doesn't
> suffer from lack of procedure, but is opposed on the grounds that it
crosses
> the line in terms of what is considered acceptable discourse.  So this
> debate is both about the substance of the motion, and the issue of where
(or
> how) this line is drawn.
>
> Jamie
>
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 8:08 AM
Subject: [ga] Time line for a vote; procedures.


> Due to time constraints at the secretariat, the most reasonable window
> for beginning a vote is the week between May 13 and May 17.
>
> I would suggest that the ballot should be opened for several possible
> resolutions on the topic of reform and a possible re-bid of ICANN
> functions, plus the option not to accept any of the resolutions.  For
> the evaluation of the vote, there are two possibilities (which only
> differ if there is more than one resolution on the table):  (1) one vote
> per member; a resolution which has more than 50% of the votes is
> accepted [note that there can be at most one such resolution], (2)
> preferential voting like what we are using for person elections, with
> the top resolution being deemed to be accepted.  (Please comment.)
>
> For a proposed resolution to be included with the ballot, the following
> three conditions must be fulfilled:  (1) It should be a statement on
> ICANN structure, mission, and a possible re-bid.  (2) There should be
> ten supporters.  (3) The resolution's final text, and the list of
> supporters, should be posted to this list no later than May 10.
>
> I would welcome it very much if we'd see, in addition to Jamie's
> resolution calling for a re-bid, a more reasonable text on the ballot.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler (mobile) <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>

--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040